The Arizona sentinel., 1887-07-30

They were authorized to draw warrant on the county treasurer for the amount of claim so audited and allowed. Failing sufficient funds to pay same, said treasurer was au- thorized to endorse said warrant. ''Not paid for want of funds" and thereafter said war rant drew interest at ten per cent per annum, until paid. It thus appears that the Board having the power to levy a tax for county purposes each fiscal year, the owner of law ful warrants issued and protested as requir- ed by law, had right to expect payment within, at most, one year from protest there of. Such warrant would come under the head of a solvent debt, and be taxable as such. Such a warrant, is not money. The right to declare " hat shall be money, is re- served to the United States. Such 9 war rant is not even 2 promissory note. It Is bare naked acknowledgement of debt due, and an order for the amount then and there. The protest of the treasurer is an acknowl- edgment that the debtor is unable to pay. If the payment thereof be deferred for any considerable length Of time, no day certain set for payment, its only security being, the faith and credit of q county whose trustees refuse or neglect to provide for the payment of it's debts, the question of solvency IS thereby raised, and it is querry whether under such conditions. such warrant would properly be taxable as a solvent debt.
 sl- I 1a cfa I0n- ed, sold or conveyed for valuable consid- eration, the holder or purchaser thereof IS assesSable on capital invested therein. The cash so invested being the measure of taxa tion for the fiscal year ill which said trans fer, sale CT assignment is consumated. Ii it can be shown that the possessory right te such warrant or order. (which in fact is only evidence of indebtedness. but not conclusive) has any value, it is taxable as personal property. If such personal property IS in the county subsequent to the first Monday in March of the fiscal year, a lien for the tax remains on the real estate of the holder, situate within the county, if said personal property be removed to a foreign state, or the tax cannot be made thereon. If such personal property duly assessed in the coun- ty be removed to a foreign state and there
 taxed, the payment of such tax does not estop this county from collecting tax on same, on the ground that double taxation only applies to property in same state or territory. The legal rule of value for tax purposes is, the value the property would i De taken for in payment of solvent debt.
 In considering the practicability of collect ing tax on said personal property. the con ditions governing the case in point, should be noted. have grave doubts, that the payment of outstanding county variants, iu their regular order, as provided by chap ter 8, comp'd laws, was intended to apply
 70 such financial condition as prevails at present in Yuma county. Decisions of the Supreme Court oi California hold, that a Board of Supervisors having the power to levy tax, for county purposes, will levy each year, sufficient to pay outstanding claims of the fiscal yearpreceeding. If such IS the correct interpretation, Yuma county has failed to make such provision in the past, and the question of taxing your own debt (foating) which you are net prepared to pay, is to say the least, questionable pol icy. It is not equitable to the creditor, and it IS impolitic to furnish the purchaser of such claims, a further excuse to attack the faith and credit of the county. The faith and credit of nations, states, counties and individuals are measured by the law mer- chant, at the will and power to fulfil their obligations. Congress declared greenbacks to be money, yet all the law of the United States could not compel an individual toI sell for one dollar in greenbacks, that which was worth one dollar in gold. It ig impos- sible for county to succeed, where the United States have failed. If any lawful arrangement can be made securing the pay ment of the county floating debt, at time stated, and a sufficient tax be levied yearly to meet the probable expenditure of the fiscal year, it is my opinion that the county  warrants thereafter duly issued and pro- tested, will be taxable as solvent debts, that the holder of such by assignment sale or conveyance for a valuable consideration will be assessable on capital invested therein. That the removal of such to a foreign state, will not bar the collection of tax in this county, that the provisions of the revenue act of the l4th legislature are predicated on the presumption held by the Supreme Court of California, as above set forth. Section 46 of said act, empowers the tax collector to enter on the duplicate roll, any property which has not been assessed for the year, and collect the tax thereon. Under this section, at any time the treasurer is prepar- ed to redeem outstanding warrants, on pre- sentation of same, the tax collector may levy and collect tax due for the year, on the amount of money paid by treasurer to the party surrendering the warrant It Is the
 money of the party which will be assessed,
 not the county warrant. Section 47 places lien on property for the tax due thereon. Section 4S places lien on real estate for tax
 due on personal property, when same is re-
 moved. or when tax cannot be made out of
 same. Section ,, makes all property in the
 hands of agents, or pledged or mortgaged, assessable against such person having DOS